[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Method for a client to determine if what it PUT/POSTed will be the same as what it would GET
- To: "Brian Smith" <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Method for a client to determine if what it PUT/POSTed will be the same as what it would GET
- From: "Teo Hui Ming" <teohuiming.work@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:39:18 +0800
- Cc: atom-protocol@xxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=3vY6GPCrsvr3qvLb9BLU09C4KdroeKqkyjbhIH7R3js=; b=cncnMNjpnWk+Adc6kKoGS5WdHU2VU0pBDkZPbgELcIeCbs3HMOqxv66tqDC17HgWUAnazitBkEAYbPFV+4nXYGD5KgByGUoAjj4S1J+o8d4QrifZEzVEIp2rcrmEH5XRtqCdQgHqzLYWltQh/yKQ5kpRSJNdWuxYrboPlSR5FmI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KFPGZWWdP6DVAa6yXSnD6CY6jA8jc7lbDhwYFv6+lJ9NuujpPW4gzJnnTtmaNFDtZcmI4Tz1/YxmuBbxqd2yoaU1u81NLW5f1BHlgZZLSkXVzXLazHRBAE397S4GjI8LorH6hNZ6AWbtRQTJ/0HGnN11zS/I3Vmpg7UgODDoL9U=
- In-reply-to: <>
- List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
- List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
- References: <> <479EF95F.8080606@xxxxxx> <73ec599d0801290552t28ef4feen55d47dd694430daa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <>
- Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 29, 2008 10:49 PM, Brian Smith <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Even if the server is trying to keep them in sync, you cause problems when the entry is being cached in such a way that the MD5 hash and ETag are stale. You have to do a HEAD on the media resource to (attempt to) verify that the media link entry is up-to-date. If you have to do a HEAD request and you are depending on the server to calculate an MD5 hash anyway, then why not just depend on the server to send a Content-MD5 in response to the HEAD request?
Agree. :-) Given that an AtomPub client will be programmed to send out
Content-MD5 header when PUT/POST a media resource, then sending a
subsequent HEAD by assuming server will return a Content-MD5 header in
response. The assumption is implicitly made by client. Will it be
worth to make this assumption explicit, probably announced by server,
e.g. label a media collection with specific f:feature?
--
Teo Hui Ming